HC Deb 19 December 1968 vol 775 cc451-4W
72. Mr. David Steel

asked the Minister of Transport (1) whether, following publication of the report, Transport in the Borders, a copy of which has been sent to him, he will make a statement on his policy on these matters;

(2) what revenue figure he assumed when calculating that a social grant of £250,000 would be needed to retain a Hawick-Edinburgh passenger rail service; on how many trains each way per day the figure was calculated; and on how many passengers per day;

(3) to what extent interest charges on past investment were included in his cost figure when calculating the social grant needed to retain all or part of the Waverley Line;

(4) whether he will indicate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the nature of the representations he received about the future of the Waverley Line from the Scottish Transport Users Consultative Committee, the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) and the Church and Nation Committee of the Church of Scotland, respectively;

(5) in considering the closure of the Edinburgh-Hawick-Carlisle railway line, what study was made of the possibility of re-routing all Edinburgh-London, Euston, traffic on to this line; and by how much it was estimated such a step would reduce the annual deficit on the operation of the line;

(6) whether he will have immediate discussions with British Railways about the findings and recommendations concerning the relations between his department and the Railways Board in the report, Transport in the Borders, a copy of which has been sent to him;

(7) what recommendations were made to him by the Borders Economic Consultative Group about the closure of the Edinburgh-Hawick-Carlisle railway;

(8) what information he obtained, before approving the closure of the line, as to the annual revenue from freight carried on the Edinburgh-Hawick-Carlisle railway line to and from places on the route, and through this route, respectively, in each of the last five years;

(9) before coming to a decision to approve closure of the line, what information he obtained as to how many days in each of the last five years the Edinburgh-Hawick-Carlisle railway line was used as a relief route for traffic diverted from other normal routes: and what revenue to the Waverley line was attributed therefrom;

(10) whether, following publication of the report, Transport in the Borders, a copy of which has been sent to him, he will take action on the criticisms contained therein on the failure in his conditions of closure of the Waverley line to stipulate an adequate bus service through Newcastleton and adequate bus/rail connections at Carlisle;

(11) at what level of social grant he was prepared to assist the running of a Hawick-Edinburgh rail service;

(12) why, in view of the representations made to him, he did not make a grant to enable the Waverley line to be kept open for passenger services.

Mr. Marsh

The report by Mr. John Hibbs, Transport in the Borders, which was published on 13th December, recognises that there is no case for retaining the rail passenger service on the whole of the line from Edinburgh to Carlisle via Hawick. It does suggest that a service between Edinburgh and Hawick only might be run at the expense of the local authorities concerned. It also suggests that pending a decision by the local authorities, the Minister should grant aid the line for three months. I am unable to accept this proposal. There is nothing in the report to persuade me that the figure of about £250,000 a year for a grant for a radically reduced service between Edinburgh and Hawick was exaggerated and I do not consider that this would represent value for money. The hourly service proposed by Mr. Hibbs would cost more and would not, in my view, attract a sufficient number of extra passengers to offset the very heavy deficit particularly in view of the substantial decline in passenger carryings over the last few years. But since I have asked the Railways Board to retain the route formation between Edinburgh and Hawick for at least two years, the local authorities will have ample opportunity to consider Mr. Hibb's suggestion if they wish to do so.

The estimated annual grant of £250,000 assumed an annual revenue of between £50,000 and £70,000. The service was based on 5/6 trains each way per day and on about 660 single journeys per day.

Interest charges included in the grant calculations were expressed in accordance with the procedures being adopted for all other grant aided services, and the recommendations of the Joint Steering Group (Annex to Cmnd. 3439).

The Scottish Transport Users' Consultative Committee, the Scottish Council (Development and Industry), and the Church and Nation Committee of the Church of Scotland all opposed closure on the grounds, respectively, of hardship to displaced rail users, impairment of industrial development prospects and road conditions and winter weather implications.

The possibility of diverting all Edinburgh-London (Euston) traffic from the Edinburgh (Carstairs) line on to the Waverley line was considered but discarded because this would have meant saving only about 15 route miles of track against the 98 route miles of the Waverley line.

I shall arrange for discussions between my Department and the Railways Board about all matters dealt with in the report.

The Borders Economic Consultative Group made recommendations to the Scottish Economic Planning Council, whose advice was given to me in confidence.

Freight matters are the responsibility of the Railways Board.

I did not seek information about the use of the Waverley line as a relief route since this could have had no bearing upon my decision.

The additional bus services prescribed as a condition of my consent were designed to provide an adequate alternative to the existing train service. But I shall be prepared to consider in the light of experience any evidence pointing to the need for adjustments in timing or frequency.

I decided not to make a grant to enable the Waverley line to be kept open for passenger services because I did not consider that a grant for even the minimum service would represent value for money. Any other calculations would have been entirely hypothetical.